Welcome to Supreme Court Brief, where we count down the days in terms of opinions. Five down this week, 34 to go. The justices picked up the pace on Monday—whetting everyone's appetite for more. Below, we've culled some expert opinions on the big sports betting case for a quick read on the potential wide impact of the ruling. Plus: A Georgetown law professor's article drew a shout-out from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thanks for reading SCB. We welcome your feedback, tips and suggestions: [email protected] and [email protected].

'A Sea Change in the Gaming Landscape' After Murphy v. NCAA

In the wake of Monday's sports betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA, it's hard to think of a Supreme Court ruling in recent years that has rung more bells in more legal practices nationwide.

In addition to sports and gaming law, there will be complex legal and lobbying work in the areas of tribal law, state and federal regulation, and state-federal clashes over a host of hot-button issues beyond sports. Think sanctuary cities, environmental regs, gun control, the marijuana industry, and more.

The decision doubled down on states' rights under the Tenth Amendment, and could herald a revival of the Rehnquist court's federalism juggernaut. The Rehnquist court's embrace of state sovereignty seemed to weaken when states enacted policies on assisted suicide and medical marijuana, among other subjects that conservatives were not wild about. The Trump administration may face similarly difficult choices when it comes to state policies it does not like.

And don't think that this federalism talk leaves the federal government out of the picture. As Justice Samuel Alito Jr. noted in his majority, “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own.” Congress won't be shy about accepting the invitation and getting in the game.

What follows are some comments we received and thought interesting on the fallout from Murphy:

• Irwin Raij, co-chair of O'Melveny & Myers sports industry group, and an owner of professional sports franchises: “The state-by-state approach that is about to follow will necessarily mean that different states will legalize gambling in different ways. In the sports industry, that's going to place a huge onus on the leagues (and perhaps also universities) to (1) quickly implement regulations to ensure the 'integrity' of the sport, but also (2) pursue legislative solutions in states and in Congress … Suffice it to say, handicappers could make a lot of money not only betting on sports, but also betting how betting on sports is going to develop in the coming weeks and months.”

• Richard Batchelder, commercial litigator and sports lawyer at Ropes & Gray: “States looking to find another source of revenue, as well as dynamic and innovative companies focused on enhancing the experience of both the casual and dedicated sports fan, will act quickly to take advantage of the changing landscape made possible by today's momentous decision.”

• Hilary Tompkins, a partner at Hogan Lovells and former solicitor for the U.S. Interior Department: “The decision is a sea change in the gaming landscape. States that previously could not authorize sports betting will be able to pass laws permitting such gaming. Tribes will need a seat at the table before the state considers such changes to ensure all legally-protected rights of tribes are honored.”

• Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute: “Indeed, as important as Murphy v. NCAA is for the gaming industry, the reason this case was so closely watched is because of its implications on so many areas of policy that have revealed federal-state tensions of late. From environmental regulation to sanctuary cities, marijuana to guns, states are flexing their sovereign muscles in a way that strengthens our body politic … Federalism is good for red states and blue states alike.”

• Kate Lowenhar-Fisher, chair of Dickinson Wright's gaming practice in Las Vegas: “Those states that have already enacted sports betting legislation must be firing up their engines as we speak. If I were a major illegal bookmaker, I would avoid a connecting flight in the United States. Now we will see the true viability of the legal sports betting market in the United States. Watch for state governments learning some hard lessons about the economics of a regulated book. Plus I expect that the Wire Act will be next on the agenda.”

A Ginsburg Shout-Out

Erica Hashimoto of Georgetown University Law Center experienced that sweet reward of influential scholarship when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday cited the law professor's 2010 article as supporting authority in her majority opinion in McCoy v. Louisiana.

In the court's 6-3 decision, Ginsburg said a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his lawyer refrain from admitting guilt even when the lawyer believes that confessing guilt is the defendant's best chance to avoid the death penalty.

Ginsburg cited Hashimoto's article, “Resurrecting Autonomy: The Criminal Defendant's Right to Control the Case,” for its argument that for some criminal defendants “the possibility of an acquittal, even if remote, may be more valuable than the difference between a life and death sentence.”

Hashimoto (left), director of the law school's appellate litigation clinic and a former federal public defender, told Supreme Court Brief that she had been concerned for some time about how lower courts and the Supreme Court seemed to be retrenching on the right to self-representation. Her law review article is an examination of the defendant's autonomy right.

“I think it's an incredibly important part of the system,” she said. “The real reason is we all value things slightly differently.” As a public defender, she explained, she could tell a client why he or she should go to trial and take a plea.

“I'm a very risk averse person but not all my clients were,” said Hashimoto. “For some of them, the 10 percent chance they might win at trial was worth more than time saved by taking a plea. I think for all those reasons the defendant deserves to be in the driver's seat.”

The McCoy majority, she said, “got it exactly right.” These types of cases, she added, often fall at the intersection of the defendant's mental illness and that makes them very difficult for lawyers.

“There are ways the system can take account of that,” she said. “But McCoy had been found competent and once found competent, he has same the rights as any criminal defendant.”

In Case You Missed It: Should Kennedy Stay or Should He Go?

➤➤ Justice Anthony Kennedy: Should he stay or should he go now? Appellate specialist Howard Bashman digs into the question at ALM affiliate The Legal Intelligencer.

➤➤ Akin Gump and Munger Tolles were awarded collectively more than $1 million in legal work defending the District of Columbia's subway system in a dispute over displaying a Christmas ad. Munger's Donald Verrilli Jr. is facing off against Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis, representing the Archdiocese of Washington.

➤➤ The new RBG movie is in theaters nationwide, and is a must see for SCOTUS aficionados as well as those who want to learn more about the history of women in the law and the legal battle for gender equality, Tony Mauro says in this review.

➤➤ Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas stood together in dissent in McCoy v. Louisiana but will their recent alignments hold up in the remainder of the term.

➤➤ The Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Americans (55 percent) now want the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution on what the document means “in current times,” not on its original meaning (41 percent).

➤➤ The Supreme Court soon will consider a narrow challenge to solitary confinement: whether those prisoners have a right to outside exercise.